§ 192. 3. Facts of a Mixed Legal and Public Nature. There are many facts pertaining to the proceedings or action of the legislature, or the executive, or which are the result of their action, or with which the government has a legal connection, but which are not fully shown by general law, that are brought within the official cognizance of the courts. They chiefly concern our foreign relations, legislative bodies, courts and proceedings of a public nature under authority of law. § 193. (e) The Existence, Relations and Symbols of civilized Nations. We possess, through the political department of the government direct relations with all nations recognized as such, and the result, is thus given by Mr. Greenleaf: 134 "All civilized nations, being alike members of the great family of sovereignties, may well be supposed to recognize each other's existence, and general public and external relations. The usual and appropriate symbols of nationality and sovereignty are the national flag and seal. Every sovereign, therefore, recognizes, and, of course, the public functionaries of every nation take notice of, the existence and titles of the other Sovereign powers in the civilized world, their respective flags, and their seals of state. Public acts, decrees and judgments, exemplified under this seal, are received as true and genuine-it being the highest evidence of their character. If, however, upon a civil war in any country, one part of the nation shall separate itself from the other, and establish for itself an independent government, the newly formed nation cannot, without proof, be recognized as such by the judicial tribunals of other nations, until it has been acknowl edged by the sovereign power under which those tribunals are con stituted the first act of recognition belonging to the executive function. But though the seal of the new power, prior to such acknowl edgment, is not permitted to prove itself, yet it may be proved as a fact by other competent testimony. And the existence of such unacknowledged government or state may in like manner be proved, 134 1 Greenl. Ev. § 4. the rule being that if a body of persons assemble together to protect themselves and support their own independence, make laws, and have courts of justice, this is evidence of their being a state." No averment of facts should, therefore, be made setting out the existence, general, public, and external relations and symbols of nations recognized as such, though, as to unacknowledged states, they must be pleaded and proved as other facts.135 § 194. (1) Legislative Bodies and their Journals. 137 The English courts take judicial notice of the legal privileges of the House of Commons without regard to the adverse opinion of the House,138 and of the privileges of members of the House; also of the commencement, prerogatives and sessions of Parliament,13 the order of proceeding and its committees,139 and the place of holding its sessions.140 Most of these matters-though not all-are regu lated by law. But the journals of Parliament are not records, and cannot weaken or control a statute which is a record, and to be tried by itself.141 In Indiana, in Illinois and in Wisconsin it 135 Yrisarri v. Clement, 3 Bing. 432. 136 Denman, C. J., in Stockdale v. Hansard, 9 Adol. & E. 107. 137 Cassidy v. Steuart, 2 Man. & G. 437. 138 Rex v. Wilde, 1 Lev. 296, and cited in note 31 to Boyce v. Whitaker, 1 Doug. 94. 139 Lake v. King, 1 Saund. 133. 140 Birt v. Rothwell, 1 Ld. Raym. 210, 343. 141 King v. Arundel, Hob. 109; and the chancellor says (page 111): "The journal is of good use for the observation of the generality and materiality of the proceedings and deliberations as to the three readings of any bill, the intercourse between the Houses, and the like; but when the act is passed, the journal is expired." Whether, if it became material to inspect the journals, the court would do it without the proper allegation and proof, or whether it would judicially notice facts appearing in the records without evidence in regard to them, is not distinctly stated. If, however, "when the act is passed, the journal is expired," it would seem to be below the judicial notice of the court. To the same effect is Evans v. Browne, 30 Ind. 514; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Governor, 23 Mo. 353; semble, People v. Devlin, 33 N. Y. 269. But see Gardner v. Collector, 6 Wall. 499, where it is held that the court will examine the journal of the legislative body, to ascertain the true date of the Fresident's signature to a bill, when it does not appear on the face of the act. is held that legislative journals, although public records, are not within the judicial knowledge of the court.142 But the holding is otherwise in Michigan.143 Tribunals will take official notice of the accession of the chief executive of the nation, or of the state under whose authority they act, and of their powers and duties. 144 This notice extends to all public state officers 145-as, auditor, treasurer, etc., also to sheriffs, 140 and implies, where a seal is not required, a recognition of their signatures, although not that of their deputies. Courts will ju dicially recognize the public officers of the state under whose laws and organization they act-as, the chief magistrate, the heads of departments, judges of courts of general jurisdiction,147 attorneys for the state, sheriffs-and we see no reason why the clerks of the same courts should not also be included." 148 Sheriffs and the clerks of such courts are deemed state officers. The courts will also take notice of the day of a general election, and officers to be voted for,149 but not the election day in another state.1 150 The distinction between the general officers of the state and local officers should be noted. The existence and signatures of the former only will be noticed throughout the state. But judicial notice will be taken of county officers and their signatures, within the territorial jurisdiction of the court,151 including registers of the coun 142 Coleman v. Dobbins, 8 Ind. 156; Grob v. Cushman, 45 Ill. 119; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Wren, 43 Ill. 77; Shipman v. State, 42 Wis. 377. 143 People v. Mahaney, 13 Mich. 481. See ante, § 181, and note. 1441 Greenl. Ev. § 6; Hizer v. State, 12 Ind. 330; State v. Williams, 5 Wis. 308; Lindsey v. Attorney General, 33 Miss. 508. 145 [Also the judicial appointment of the governor. De la Rosa v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 21 S. W. 192.] 146 Ingram v. State, 27 Ala. 17; Major v. State, 2 Sneed, 11. 147 [Cincinnati, I., St. L. & C. Ry. Co. v. Grames (Ind. App.) 34 N. E. 613.] 148 Tolton, J., in Mayor v. State, 2 Sneed, 11. In this the clerk's certificate to a transcript lacked the seal, but his signature was recognized. 149 State v. Minnick, 15 Iowa, 123. 150 Taylor v. Rennie, 35 Barb. 272. 151 Wetherbee v. Dunn, 32 Cal. 106. ties; 152 and the rule is applied to a levee tax collector.158 It is also applied to a notary public-who, in Illinois, is authorized to administer and certify to an oath without a seal.154 In Wetherbee v. Dunn, the court placed the recognition of county officers upon the ground "that courts will take notice of what ought to be generally known within the limits of their jurisdiction." 155 § 196. Courts-Their Officers and Rules. Judges will take notice of all other courts of general jurisdiction and the extent 156 of their jurisdiction, inasmuch as it is necessarily regulated by law, and the existence, jurisdiction and practice of inferior courts is also judicially known, outside of the area of their jurisdiction, so far as they are established by law. The courts of general jurisdiction, in the several counties, will not only take notice of the subordinate or inferior courts within the countyas, of those of justices of the peace 157 -as established by law, but also the signatures of the judges and justices. The former is known as matter of law, and the latter as matter of local notoriety.158 As to the rules of court, they are not judicially known by other courts, although it was held in Maryland 159 that an appellate court 152 Scott v. Jackson, 12 La. Ann. 640. 153 Templeton v. Morgan, 16 La. Ann. 438. 154 Dyer v. Flint, 21 Ill. 80. "We 155 The language of the court in Wetherbee v. Dunn is as follows: think that the courts ought at least to go so far as to take notice as to who fill the various county offices within their urisdiction, and the genuineness of their signatures." It may be doubted whether the last phrase is not too broad. The court will take notice of the official signatures of its own officers, also of the signatures of officers within its jurisdiction to certificates required by law-as, in authenticating transcripts in their custody, depositions taken by them, etc. But in a suit upon a tax-deed-as, in Wetherbee v. Dunn-or upon a county bond required to be signed by certain officers, may not an issue be made upon the genuineness of the deed or the bond? or can the court take it from the jury, or say that the instrument proves itself? If the genuineness of the deed is attacked collaterally, as when offered in evidence, the court will pass upon it before it can be read to the jury. 156 Starkie, Ev. (8th Am. Ed.) 735, note q. 157 Graham v. Anderson, 42 Ill. 514. 158 See last section. 159 Contee v. Pratt, 9 d. 73. 160 was bound, judicially, to know the rules of the inferior court. The opposite view was afterwards taken by the same court.1 The rules of court-though, for the due order of proceeding, obligatory upon suitors are not public law, neither are they so notorious as to be known to all; and, upon principle, those of other courts should be brought to the knowledge of a trial court by pleading and evidence; and those of the trial court to that of an appellate court, by incorporating them in a bill of exceptions—and such is believed to be the general practice.161 Appellate courts will take notice of the commencement and conclusion of the terms of their subordinate courts,162 but the existence, jurisdiction, and practice of inferior courts can be judicially known to the courts, generally, only as established by law, and the length of their terms is a mixed question of law and notoriety. The duty of the court to judicially notice the title and official acts of certain officers only extends to them as officers de facto; the courts cannot, in this manner, pass upon the genuineness of their title; but in a direct proceeding at the suit of the state, or whoever has a right to contest it, the right of the one in possession of the office will be passed upon like other similar issues.163 § 197. Official Seals. The national seals of all countries are universally recognized, and the seals of the several secretaries of state and territories are supposed to be known to the courts of all the states, and of the United States and territories. Judicial notice will be taken of a national seal when the existence of the nation has been acknowl 160 Cherry v. Baker, 17 Md. 75; Scott v. Scott, Id. 78. By section 2709 of the Iowa Code of 1873 it is provided that every court in the state shall take judicial notice of the rules of any other court thereof, if published as directed by law. 161 See O'Connor v. Koch, 56 Mo. 253. 162 Morgan v. State, 12 Ind. 448; McGinnis v. State, 24 Ind. 500; Rodgers v. State, 50 Ala. 102. 163 See State v. Williams, 5 Wis. 308; and Clark v. Com., 29 Pa. St. 129. It follows, as held in these cases-and that was the point decided-that the validity of the acts of the de facto officer cannot be questioned collaterally. |